+ Sponsors

January 2011

Friday, 07 January 2011

Remember this post, about Tiger Woods' golf ball being caught by a photographer in mid-flight as it headed toward the photographer? In a sinister parallel, Filipino councilman Reynaldo Dagsa was taking a picture of his family when he was murdered by a car thief he had helped send to jail. Bizarrely and tragically, Dagsa captured with his camera the muzzle flash of one of the shots that killed him.

The Philippine Daily Inquirerreported the story. This is the portion of the picture that shows the killer:

Reynaldo Dagsa/AP

At least justice was served—with the help of the photograph, the murderer was identified and is now in custody.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Nikhil Ramkarran: "I was robbed at gunpoint earlier this year while out taking photos with a friend. My friend had taken a photo of the robbers just moments before they robbed us which we were able to use to identify the thieves. They were arrested just days later. Luckily for us, my friend was using a camera strap that they were unable to open in the time they had (my camera was taken and later recovered).

"The most important thing? I still managed not to break my photo a day project :) And when I got back my camera I was able to post my photo for that day too. I can smile now, but it was a terrifying experience, mitigated somewhat by a camera."

That's moderately amazing to me. A Cooke-type triplet? I can find a dozen lenses on Ebay for under $15 that outperform it. At least technically. Sometimes, though, what you want is a little historical cachet, I guess. And certainly exclusivity—there were only 200 of these.

The formal name for it is the MS Optical Super Triplet Perar 35mm ƒ/3.5. "MS" stand for Sadoyasu Miyazaki, who designed the lens and hand-assembled it in Japan. Interesting reading about the design's history on Dirk's page.

If I were going to get a modern iteration of a classic design I'd rather have one of these. A beautiful lens with a distinctive historical character—discontinued now. Sure to be a future classic. I'll take a Tessar-type any day.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, 06 January 2011

The Pentax 645D was announced in March for shipment worldwide in May, and finally made it to these shores (the U.S.A.) just recently. Its history has been plagued with starts and stops: its development was famously jettisoned only to be resuscitated when Pentax was purchased by Hoya. The timing turned out to be just right. Now, Pentax has another problem on its hands. It was expecting the 645D to be a prestige product, an image leader. It has been caught by surprise by the heavy demand, especially in emerging markets. Who expected this to be a viable product?

It's looking like it is. We haven't seen one yet, so my comments will be limited. But, according to early reports, none of the vagaries of its development seem to be mirrored in the camera itself. Pentax had a basic body design to build on that was both a well-conceived camera originally and also had been steadily developed and refined to create an exceptionally well-thought-out design. The addition of the large digital sensor (40MP, 44x33mm) breaks the bounds of "full frame" (24x36mm) to which larger cameramakers are currently constrained.

As such, the 645D has only scant competition: its direct competitor is only the S2 by Leica, another smaller maker with a long heritage, and the Pentax is less than half the S2's price. Each also competes with modular medium-format cameras with digital backs, but the 645D compares favorably there as well.

We have one medium-format camera review under way currently, and we hope to be able to use a 645D later this year to add our modest contribution to the collective impression. But even with direct experience pending, the verdict is clear: 2010 was the year the 645D got here. Here's to the future.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Edd Fuller: "I think this is good news for Pentax users. Pentax's ability and willingness to compete with other camera makers has been questioned frequently in the past, often with dire predictions that Pentax users will eventually be left high and dry. I don't expect to be in the market for a 645D anytime soon, but I will continue to use Pentax as my primary platform. The success of the 645D makes me more comfortable that I can rely on the future of the Pentax system overall."

Featured Comment by MarkB: "Here's to the promise of dreams fulfilled! Dreams of ownership have now supplanted dreams of availability...."

Featured Comment by Harriet Rubin: "I value this site for its precision in writing and sensibility, particularly of the no-nonsense variety. So how can a camera you haven't reviewed and nobody or almost nobody has yet used be the camera of the year '2010.' I hope it isn't sponsor pressure. Shouldn't you wait until 2011 to add it to any list?"

Mike replies:"Camera of the Year" isn't a review. It doesn't say that the camera is "the best" or "the best of its class" or even "good." It's just an evaluation of significance. As Gordon says, if you were to name the Man or Woman of the Year, you wouldn't have to know the individual personally in order to make an intelligent choice.

I would of course never review a camera without having used it myself...normally, pretty extensively. When I reviewed cameras for magazines my standard was that I had to use a review camera for three months, using it for real work. That was a far stricter standard than most reviewers held themselves to, then or now.

Nowadays I'll review a camera without having used it extensively, but I'll always tell you what the extent of my experience with it actually is. If it's just my impressions from having handled it at a camera store, I'll say so. If I own the camera, you'll know. You can evaluate what I say accordingly.

In keeping with that, you're certainly free to ignore my "Camera of the Year" choice if you want to. (Or anything I say about anything, for that matter.) I have no objections at all.

Featured Comment by Zalman Stern: "I've shot with one and agree with the choice. The unexpectedness here is really the sum of the design decisions Pentax made. It isn't just one thing that makes the camera great, it is the whole package. The 645D is of course on the big side and handles like a medium format camera, so its audience is generally photographers who are used to those things. That said, the 645D is the only medium format digital that feels natural to someone used to 35mm DSLRs."

Wednesday, 05 January 2011

A reader recently wrote me asking, "Can you give me any help on what Mac to purchase, i.e. Macbook Pro or iMac. Using Lightroom and Photoshop as my main photo editors and plan on purchasing Nik software."

An excellent question, so much so that I thought I'd publish my answer as an article. While the details, especially the technical ones, are Apple-specific, you'll find that the general principles will apply to choosing between most PC laptop and desktops.

Here's what I told him:

Either machine will work quite well for serious digital photography work, but there are trade-offs both ways. The MacBook Pro gives you more flexibility; you can take your "darkroom" anywhere. But, the iMac will cost you less and it will be a more powerful computer. If portability is not an issue, the iMac's a no-brainer. Unless you so desperately hate the glossy screen that there's no way you can live with it. Can't advise you on this point; that's entirely a matter of personal taste.

Assuming the decision isn't that clear cut, here's a more detailed breakdown. The price of a 15-inch MacBook Pro is about that of a 27-inch quad-core iMac, give or take a few hundred, depending on options. A 17-inch MacBook Pro is a few hundred more. It has two big advantages. The first, obviously, is more screen real estate. A second one is that it still has an ExpressCard slot, and you can put an Other World Computing (OWC) $30 eSATA card in there and have really, really fast external drive performance, substantially better than you'll get out of FireWire 800. On the downside, it's bigger and heavier and if you're hoping to work on an airplane you'd better be traveling First Class.

The MacBook Pros have dual core processors and can accept up to 8 GB of RAM. The iMac can hold 16 GB of RAM. Going all the way to 16GB is a bit spendy, but it's only a couple of hundred bucks to go up to 12 GB. If you're planning on running current versions of Lightroom and Photoshop, that extra 4 GB over the MacBook Pro's 8 will make a big difference in how much you can do before the system starts to bog down. With Adobe software, dual versus quad core processors don't much matter, yet, but if you're running more than one app at a time, then the extra cores make a big difference. Me, I've always got several apps running at any given moment.

If you do decide to go with the 27-inch iMac, I strongly recommend sending it off to OWC directly upon purchase to have an eSATA port installed. Otherwise, as with the 15-inch MacBook Pro, you're limited to FireWire 800.

So far it doesn't sound like as much cost difference, but there is a big gotcha with the laptop I haven't mentioned yet, which is the screen quality simply is not good enough to do serious photographic work on. You've got a less-than-24-bit display that exhibits serious gamma shift with viewing angle and a relatively small color gamut. You can do crude work on it, but finished work? Highly unlikely. That means you're going to have to invest in a second display.

Now that gives you a really sweet set up; you can keep all your tools and palettes and other apps running on your laptop display and have the studio display totally free for working on the photograph. Dual displays rock! But your price tag just went way up. I haven't read about anything I really believe in, including the low-end IPS-type Dell and HP displays. An Apple Cinema Display's good, but I'd go for the 27" NEC MultiSync PA271W. It rocks. You're looking to adding $1000 to your price tag for the second display, maybe more, maybe less.

What's best? This...

...plus this?

Or this?

So when all is said and done, going the laptop route costs you significantly more than the desktop. You get a much more flexible system, but it has less performance in every respect than a iMac. As I said at the beginning, the dual display setup is more than good enough to do serious professional work on. It's what I do most of my work on. But if performance is the issue rather than portability, it's a loss.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by yunfat: "This is a good reference to those starting out. It bears mentioning that sometimes it takes years to 'fine tune' a system, especially if one is transitioning from PC to Mac. Five things:

An OWC eSATA upgrade voids your Apple warranty, a really bad idea for an all-in-one. OWC offers a warranty for this, but it means Apple may not touch the machine if fails, and the resale value may also be affected.

All Apples need Apple Care extended warranties. This from a person who has used Macs regularly since 1986. This should be factored into the cost of the machine.

No mention of a color calibration device, this should also be factored into the cost of a new machine for photos if you don't already have one.

The main bottleneck for photographers wanting speed is disk I/O, not processor power. Hence, a Mac Mini with an SSD will outperform both options mentioned above (unless you get the SSD versions, which Apple gouges you on) and cost hundreds less (especially if you already have a display). Just my 2¢.

As a working event professional, having a great display such as the NEC can be more of a detriment than a bonus...it's fine if your clients have nice NEC calibrated kits too or you are just working for yourself on prints, but in all likelihood, the people viewing my photos are on a crap, uncalibrated monitor or (gasp) a TV. I use a good calibrator with an old monitor and I have a much better approximation of what my client will see vs the NEC where everything is perfect. Sometimes, as a business person, you have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

• • •

"One more thing. How much do you value your photos?

"If the answer is 'a lot,' please remember with an all in one or laptop you have to remove your hard drive from your computer before taking it in, unless you have locally encrypted your files. This can take up to an hour with the iMac. Otherwise, some lackey at the Apple Store may just copy your data to his Flickr pool and start a career with your photos.

"When I drop off my Mac Pro for repair, I take great solace in knowing it takes me 5 seconds to yoink all the HD's before bringing it in. I say that not because of my porn addiction, but because I have deluded myself into thinking my photos are valuable.

"Thanks to Ctein for this helpful piece."

Featured Comment by Michael Schwabe: "It makes me cringe when I read applish advices like Ctein's. The first and only relevant question to be asked is, do you want to print your files? If you answer no, then it really doesn't matter what CPU plus monitor you get. Buy the one that you like best or fits your wallet, get an iMac, a MacBook Pro or any other PC. All the CPU + RAM determines is how fast your files will load and how long you'll have to wait until Photoshop accomplishes an unsharp mask or any other task.

"However, if you answer yes, then you need to know at what technical level you want to print. Just casually, the weekend snapshots of your kids and dogs? Well, get any CPU you like best, Mac or PC with or without built-in monitor, it really doesn't matter.

"But if you want to print on a professional level, then the advice should be, don't buy a Mac with a built-in monitor (iMac, MacBook Pro). Get either a Mac mini or a Mac Pro or a PC and buy a (semi)-professional monitor (NEC, Eizo, Quatographic). That's the only hardware solution that'll enable you to get prints that'll match what you see on your monitor."

Featured Comment by Sean Murphy: "I work at digital media company that has a photo studio, performs high end color correction, retouching and creative compositing work for print and web. Our customers require product match quality, i.e., the reproduction has to look like the garment, shoe, cookware, etc. The operators run the entire Creative Suite at once to satisfy these customers, regularly working on individual files that reach 2–3 GB in size.

"All of the workstations are Macs—Mac Pros with EIZO monitors for the most experienced retouchers, Cinema displays for outlining/masking, 27" iMacs for any type of work and minis for CSRs to do preflight and file prep. Color is required to be accurate across all these computers.

"The iMac calibrates and displays color beautifully. They come up nearly dead-on at 6500K no matter the brightness level. We control our lighting environment, so glossy screens are not an issue. These machines run 16 to 20 hours a day across multiple operators and shifts. In the last three years only one computer needed a power suppy replaced.

"So I'm alway intrigued by comments of 'hard-to-calibrate,' 'expensive to upgrade and purchase,' 'you can always build a cheaper faster PC.' We recently upgraded our prodution floor to 8 core Pros and some 27" iMacs. It took one day to unbox, add a scratch disk to the Pros, add 16 GB RAM, migrate the standard applications, and system preferences, calibrate the screens for production. No operator time was lost as they just logged into their network account for email etc. from our Xserve workgroup server, on another Mac that was free. Time is money!

"'The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory.'"

Tuesday, 04 January 2011

The runner-up for Camera of the Year this year in TOP's humble opinion is the Sony A55, a DSLR that uses a (still-) innovative pellicle mirror (essentially a beam splitter). It's an action camera for video shooters and a technological tour de force.

The pellicle mirror has a long (if somewhat marginal) history in SLR cameras, starting with the Canon Pellix of 1965. Canon (Nikon, too) subsequently used the technology in some specialized high-speed pro cameras—i.e., cameras with fast motor drives. Because the mirror didn't have to flip out of the way, it was easier to achieve blazing fast frame rates. But it was the Canon EOS RT from the early '90s that was intended to showcase the technology to amateur photographers.

The EOS RT probably also scared Canon away from the technology permanently, at least for advanced amateur cameras in the A55's category. Canon fully expected the RT to be a hot commodity among advanced amateurs, but the product was a spectacular flop—the run of 10,000 units, which began its life with a premium pricetag, was expected sell out within a year. Nearly a decade later, there were still NOS (new old stock) RT's—discounted heavily to just above half their original asking price—going begging.

Why? Hard to say why photographers stayed away from the RT, but it was probably because of two perceptions—first, the image-forming light from the lens having to go through the mirror was expected to have some deleterious effect on sharpness (a reasonable-seeming assumption, just not one that was actually true), and people just didn't like the idea of the 1/3rd-stop reduction in the image-forming light that created an effective speed hit. At any rate, that was the last pellicle-mirror camera for advanced amateurs we're likely to see from Canon.

Sony is either willing to take chances that Canon et al. won't, or else it just doesn't know any better, having no negative experiences in its history to dissuade it from the idea. And that's a good thing.

The A55's mirror is fixed—it doesn't flip up when the exposure is made

Times have changed, of course. With today's high digital ISOs, the "film speed" hit isn't really noticeable any more, or it certainly isn't critical. And what with the malleability of digital images, perhaps people feel a bit less paranoid about phantom deterioration of image quality.

Plus, I loved the RT. Great camera. Canon knew the truth about it—it was the company's potential customers who had it wrong. I had one for a year and did a lot of great work with it. The lack of vibration, super-speedy shutter lag (it beat even the Leica M6), and relative quietude were all pleasing and practical. A fine camera, for its day.

In the A55, one of the old advantages applies—a very fast frame rate. The A55's pellicle mirror (or "translucent mirror technology" also permits phase detection autofocus for shooting at up to the camera's full speed of 10 FPS, which makes for focus tracking that's unprecedented at this level of the market.

We haven't reviewed this camera. The best reviews are at The Luminous Landscape, which is more interested in video than most other photo sites. L-L has a preview, a more complete follow-up that fleshes the Preview out into a full review, a video sample, and a brief autofocus tracking demo.

At any rate, the A55 is a fresh application of a valuable and practical technology, a departure from the me-too-ism all too frequently observed in DSLR marketing these days. That's worth a nod in our book.

Mike

The Sony A55 at B&H Photo, body only and in a kit with the standard 18–55mm zoom. If it were me I'd also get this lens, with or without the zoom.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by ben: "Oh man, what an awesome camera! I got to play with it for a week, so I could teach my friend who bought it how to best use it. For me, the thing about the camera is how great the EVF is—better easily than any of the Panasonic G-series. I think marrying the pellicle mirror to an EVF system was really a stroke of genius for Sony.... If this camera had a Nikon mount I would buy it in a second.

"One detail that I really like about the A55 is that in manual focus, the selected focus point lights up (red or green, I can't recall which) when your subject is in focus. Much better than having to keep checking the bottom left corner on a Nikon. A little detail, but one that makes this camera great for anyone who prefers manual focus."

Featured Comment by William Porter: "The A55 is indeed a noteworthy camera. I went with the A55's more conventional cousin the A580, mainly because the A580 has a vertical battery grip and the A55 doesn't. As a wedding shooter, I worried that the A55's relatively limited battery life would be a problem for me. I was also a bit concerned by early comments about the A55 noting that it isn't a great choice for studio work. But I've now had several chances to play with the A55 and I like it a lot. The A55's EVF seems to be a point of contention with some photographers but I rather like it. If Sony comes out with an A77 in the next year, I'll probably turn that way.

"I like that Sony is willing to take some risks like this. The electronic camera may benefit from some serious rethinking, and I'm glad that Sony is doing it (along with Panasonic, Sigma, Ricoh...)."

Featured Comment by Edward Taylor: "One interesting aspect of this camera that I haven't read about anywhere is that it would seem that the translucent mirror would solve the problem of sensor dust. I am always hesitant to change lenses in the field with most digital cameras because I never know when doing so may ruin the rest of my shots because of a dust spot right in the middle of the sensor. This design would allow the sensor compartment to be sealed just like on fixed lens cameras."

Featured Comment by Dennis: "Tests suggest the A55 is (expectedly) slightly behind the D7000 and Pentax K-5 using the same sensor at high ISO due to slightly light loss (yet still excellent) and that it records plenty of detail. There have been many discussions about 'ghosting' of highlights due to the mirror, with most people seeing no problems; it seems likely (not quite concensus yet) that the ghosting occurs in extreme lighting situations where the highlights are overexposed.

"I tried an A33 alongside the NEX-5 for a few days. I was really looking for a compact camera and hoping the A55 would satisfy, but I ultimately decided that I'd be more likely to carry the NEX when I wanted something compact. The A33 was without a doubt the better camera, though.

"AF is fast (D D-B: yes, DSLR fast). Competes favorably with any sub-$1000 DSLR, though AF speed is very lens-dependent. The camera is small. With a small prime like the 28/2, it's a nice unobtrusive camera. (It's also very quiet—much quieter than the noisy NEX). Sony has finally put out a few affordable primes—the 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and new 85/2.8. Unfortunately, they all use the new SAM focusing which is smooth, but not silent (it clicks at the start and stop of focusing and is annoying on video if not as loud as screw drive lenses).

"With big lenses, the camera is fine—you put your left hand under the lens and control the camera with your right. It's with mid-sized lenses like the excellent 16–80mm that I found the camera uncomfortable after a while.

"I've always liked LV on an LCD—the LCD on the A33 is nice (though I prefer one that flips out to the side) and I really like the idea of keeping it protected when not in use. The EVF, I didn't like so much. Not because it's an EVF versus an OVF, but because it's hard to look at with eyeglasses (for me anyway). Some cameras are better than others for eyeglass wearers. I can see the entire VF on a Canon 7D with ease; a 60D pretty well, the Nikon D7000 easily enough. On my A700 (which has an excellent VF) I have to make a point of looking into the corners. But the EVF on the A33 was very tiresome. I had to hold the camera unnaturally close to my eye (pushing my eyeglasses further up along my nose than I usually wear them) to see the entire frame.

"Now—one of the best things about the A33—a seemingly trivial feature—is the built in level. OK, other cameras have levels, too. But you can see at a glance a horizon level (am I tilted left or right?) in either landscape or portrait mode, overlaid over the VF whether using the OVF or the LCD. And it has another level telling you whether the camera is aimed up or down. You might think this only handy for architectural photography, but playing around with it, I found a lot of my images were improved by simply bending and shooting from a foot or two lower to get a straight shot, rather than aiming the camera down.

"It's really a fantastic little camera. It bugs me, though, that Sony appears intent on giving up on 'true' DSLRs in favor of this design exclusively. Have you even been out shooting stars at night and then been blinded by your LCD? Do we know the mirror won't get gunked up and hazy after a year of use? I would like to have the option of a DSLR backup camera to go along with an SLT (which would probably get used most of the time)."

Monday, 03 January 2011

Tough day today. Dental appointment, tough for me because I have an irrational phobia about having dental work done (completely unfounded; that's the "irrational" part). So I got little sleep in advance of my procedure, which of course turned out to be not so bad. Although the stress of the day and the residual ache in my jaw makes me doubly tired tonight. But on to my topic:

In my New Year's Resolution post I wrote that you should "...attack your weakness."

Reader David Littlejohn responded: "Having worked for several years in the Performance Management practice in corporate HR, I would respectfully disagree. We always recommend that people push their strengths. Identify the things that you are good at (these are the things that generally differentiate you from others around you) and work to get even better at them.

"The only time you should concentrate on a weakness is if it a show-stopper, a career killer. Otherwise, spend your time pushing your strengths."

On further reflection, I think David's right, and that I should retract my previous position. Life is too short to spend too much time butting your head against things you're no good at. The only time it makes sense to attack your weakness is where there's some clear concept of completeness that needs to be addressed: for example, when Don Budge, the great American tennis player of the 1930s, secluded himself to work on his backhand, at the time his greatest weakness. It eventually became one of his greatest strengths, and completed his game.

We do have a tendency to respect and value what we're not good at, and downplay or undervalue our strengths. What we're good at comes easily to us, so it can seem less important, less "earned"—as if "anybody can do that." We might might mistakenly aspire to excel in a field that's difficult for us, imagining that there's greater glory in it. But playing to our strengths is how we make it possible to reach greater heights of accomplishment. And accomplishment is hard enough, really.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Darin McCauley: "One man's rut is another man's groove."

Featured Comment by George Barr: "In the corporate world, it is unlikely that the majority of people will be able to sufficiently improve their weaknesses (which are often ingrained and related to personality) to make a significant difference.

"In photography, as in tennis, having a significant weakness, your poor backhand or a deficiency in skills of , say, seeking out wonderful colour, or composing strongly, or making sure your images tell a story, or any number of other deficiencies will lead to significantly poorer images.

"In business, others can make up for your deficiencies, in photography as in tennis, you are the only one holding the racquet or camera—you have total responsibility—no assistants, no secretaries, no detail people.

Featured Comment by Ben Rosengart: "My gut feeling, and I know that this seems crazy, is that both are good advice."

Mike replies: I came to the same conclusion last night. I depends on each person and what they're doing now and what they need. I sometimes conceive of myself as a teacher manqué, and surely one of the deficiencies of this format—a blog with a sizeable audience—is that there can be no "individual conferences" so to speak. I'm quite sure the proper advice is not universal. That's our problem here.

Featured Comment by Dave Karp: "I agree, and don't. It's the 'always' part. [Note that Dave is responding to the main post, not to the paragraph I wrote just above, which he hadn't seen when he wrote his comment. (I hadn't seen his when I wrote mine, either.) —Ed.]

"If your weakness is unimportant (in other words, truly irrelevant) then I agree.

"But so many of us avoid dealing with an important weakness, and justify it by saying that it is irrelevant. When someone else has a strength that targets your weakness (imagine you were a photographer in 1998 who had limited computer skills, or did not understand digital cameras and your clients started leaving you for photographers with a broader range of skills), or when you have a chance to take advantage of an opportunity that comes your way, but a weakness prevents or inhibits you from doing so (you want a new job but you don't have adequate computer skills), you can suffer.

"I often think of this when I deal with students who have not learned how to effectively convey their thoughts in writing. It is time, while they are at school, to eliminate that weakness.

"'Always' is a tough word."

Mike adds:Your comment about writing skills reminds me of an old witticism: poor written expression makes you mimic an imbecile to others. Of course, writing is one of my strengths, so I would think that.

Featured Comment by Player: "As a counterpoint to Don Budge, Roger Federer was quoted saying: 'I have never believed in working on my weaknesses. My serve and my forehand are my strengths and I work on them to get better.' Yet both Budge and Federer were wildly successful players. In 1938 Budge was the first and youngest player to accomplish the Grand Slam (winning all four majors in a calender year). Federer, who is generally acknowledged as the greatest player ever, never achieved a Grand Slam although he has won all four majors: Australian, French, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open."

Featured Comment by Mark Hespenheide: "As a former bicycle racer, a truism of the sport is that you 'train your weaknesses and race your strengths.'

"I take this to mean that you should work on the things that you aren't good at, but when the metaphorical chips are down, play to your strengths.

"I would also point out that many of us haven't seriously tried the things we're really not good at.... A colleague once invited me to try photographing dance performances when he had seen my landscape photography. The two genres are nearly diametric opposites. I was frustrated for the first year or two of working at it, but now it's almost a second love with a very different skill set."

Featured Comment by Michael Roche: "Concentrating on one's strengths is a common cause of underachievement in amateur golf (club level, not low handicap or scratch level). Very few high handicap golfers pay enough attention to the short game, where most shots are lost, and instead tend to practice the long game, which tends to be the better part of their game, and thus spend most of their golfing days returning higher scores than they would had they a reasonable short game. I include myself in this catagory."

Featured Comment by drnslater: "...And if your strength is dentistry and your weakness photography...? !!"

"This photo was shot in anticipation of the Rhode Island National Guard's annual air show. I had fun shooting it, but I'm sure Herald News reporter Kevin O'Connor had even more fun riding in the front seat of of that acrobatic plane."

One from the trenches: TOP reader Jack Foley works for the Herald-News in Fall River, Massachusetts (a state in New England, in the Northeast, for those of you who aren't from this country), serving Fall River, Somerset, Swansea, Westport, and Dartmouth in Massachusetts, and Tiverton and Little Compton across the state line in Rhode Island. He started in daily newspapers 32 years ago so he could shoot pictures every day, with lots of variety. "I'm not disappointed," he says.

He's posted ten of his better shots from 2010, in case you might "care to look at a few pix from guys like me that grind 'em out five shifts a week, and get a good one occasionally."

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, 02 January 2011

I know the most popular answer to the question of New Year's resolutions now is not to make any, because we never keep them anyway (although I kept mine last year), but just in case you might be looking to improve your photography in 2011, I have a small bit of modest advice. Set mechanical goals. That is, goals of time, number, frequency, or duration. Photography is a game of doing, and things get done only when you get going and do them. So what I'm suggesting is to make a decision on some purely literal basis. Such as, how many exposures you're going to make every day, or every weekend. How much time, or how often, you're going to spend out and about with your camera in your hands. How many prints you're going to make every week. How often you're going to find a model or set up a portrait shoot. How many new things you're going to try.

It can really be anything—the specifics are up to you. Although I have a suggestion for that, too: attack your weakness. Whatever you think you're worst at, set a mechanical goal for that. If you're bad at editing, make yourself spend 15 minutes a day editing. If you're awkward shooting strangers, make sure you shoot a stranger three times a week. Keep the goals small, and simple.

If you set a plain mechanical goal, you make success easy. Not everybody can guarantee that they'll shoot 12 great pictures a year (this was Ansel Adams's goal for himself). But you can guarantee that you'll shoot twelve exposures a week. Leave the elusive parts of success to work themselves out. Plain, literal goals can be met more easily—all it takes is things you can control like dedication and discipline, not the more ephemeral things you can't control like talent or luck or weather or opportunity, or things coming together in that semi-magical way the way they sometimes do.

I've set mine, but I'm not going to tell what it is. I'm afraid I'll jinx myself, and anyway, my goal doesn't matter to you. Yours is the important one. I'll tell you what mine was on Jan. 2, 2012. It's an easy one, and if I just keep at it, I can get it done.

Mike

P.S. Oh, and if you've made the most common New Years Resolution: our friend Grant Peterson at Rivendell recommends this book. I'm game. I'll order one. What the heck—hope springs eternal.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Marshall: "Well put. A coach I've worked with and I talk to our team about goals like this. We discuss them as process and outcome goals. Outcome goals (win the game; shoot the perfect landscape) are always to some extent out of one's control. Process goals are the ones you can control. Achieving process goals contributes to achieving outcome goals. Hadn't thought to apply this thinking to photography in this way, but it makes a lot of sense to me."

Featured Comment by John Camp: "If you have detected in yourself a certain talent, and if you spend two hours a day intelligently exercising that talent, you'll become very good at it. Most intelligent people have a talent of some kind. The reason they don't achieve excellence with that talent is that they don't work the two hours a day. They could find the two hours if they really wanted to, but they don't. Instead, they find excuses. I've watched lots of artists work, and it's almost invariably true that the best of them work that two hours a day. And those who work four hours a day are even better. I want to become knowledgeable in a certain area of Photoshop. So, I'm going to make myself learn it. I'm going to spend an hour a day at it, until it gets done. I'll let you know in a year what happened."

Featured Comment by Bernd Reinhardt: "I have a suggestion that works really well for me and my friends: about once every two months about five of us get together drinking beers and showing prints. We call it 'print meeting.' Each of us brings five to twenty five prints of any size, kind, or subject matter. We take turns throwing them on the table and we offer comments and suggestions, and simply enjoy each other's work. We started this so that all these photographs wouldn't just end up forgotten on some hard drive. It is a ton of fun for everyone. We keep it small and limited to good friends so that there is no competition, just the motivation to get stuff done."

Featured Comment by Dave: "A few years back I made a simple resolution to just shoot more. I stuck with the resolution. Over time I saw that I was getting better photos. The success led me to shoot even more and the improvement continued. My enjoyment of photography swelled. I bought some heavy duty Photoshop books and some art photography books. I continue to improve and my love for photography grows in an upward spiral. It all started with a stupid New Year's resolution."

Data-suck, n., a condition whereby more data or information leads, paradoxically, to less knowledge, clarity, or understanding.

In shopping, it's when a shopper has gotten too much secondhand information (reviews, friends' opinions, specifications, test results, manufacturers' literature, etc.) and not enough firsthand experience, such that more "research" actually leads to greater indecision or confusion rather than less. The data-suck illusion is the belief that more secondhand information will help a dilemma resolve, e.g., if one has read nine reviews, and is in a state of confusion, reading a tenth will settle everything.

Actually, of course, the only cure for data-suck is more "real" or firsthand data—trying something for oneself, doing one's own tests, or seeing, hearing, touching, or experiencing one or more examples of the product category firsthand—or just doing something and moving on.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

"Part of what makes 'data suck' such a growing problem these days is that cameras are more complicated while also being harder to examine first-hand. Local retailers are declining in number. Inventories are shrinking in size and diversity. Salespeople at big-box stores are barely knowledgeable. Buyers think they can find the information they're looking for on the Internet and in various fora. Instead, they find verbal fistfights. One side argues 'That camera sucks!' The other side argues, 'Does not!' The predictable counterargument is 'Does too!' And on and on it goes...."

Featured Comment by Erez: "I know this term as "Analysis Paralysis". Very easy to get sucked into this in the internet age...."

Mike replies:I agree. The reason I find myself chuckling over the term "data-suck" is its implication that what is promising to add to your store of knowledge is actually depleting it.

A related problem is "Connoisseurship Paralysis." That's when you know so much that no available solution hits the elusive, exacting target of your over-refined desires.

Featured Comment by David Dyer-Bennet: "This is a major contributing factor to my observation that the first time you buy something in a new-to-you category, you're very likely to get it wrong (first digital camera, first SLR, first guitar, first cell phone, etc.). You don't know the questions to ask or where to look for the answers or how to interpret the language of the discussion."

Mike replies:Quite possible, but it's also because you don't know how your needs intersect with the conventional needs of the "set of all consumers." I just mentioned connoisseurship paralysis, which is the far extreme, but at the other end—the near extreme—you do need some connoisseurship in order to make a suitable choice. What's good for the majority might not be what's best for you, so you need some experience to get to know yourself as well.

Saturday, 01 January 2011

If you'll look out your window, you'll notice it's turning 2011 out there. Just wanted to thank everyone for coming by in 2010, and I want to extend to you my best wishes for a healthy and non-harrowing next year—I hope it will be good to you. Thanks to all of you who supported us last year, and to all of our contributors and their families, and mostly to those of you who stop by to read at least once in a while. It's been fun.

I plan to try to keep TOP going for another 365, so please do come back.

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Steve McCurry has posted nine frames from the ceremonial last-ever roll of Kodachrome on his blog. Steve took the assignment very seriously, traveling around the world and including portraits of stars like Robert De Niro and Amitabh Bachchan (the second name won't mean much to readers in the U.S., but it will to readers in India) as well as some of the colorful native portraits for which is he is best known.

Ara Güler by Steve McCurry, from the last roll of Kodachrome

Much bigger stars to me are Elliot Erwitt and Ara Güler, no less! Ara, éminence grise of Turkish photography, is the auteur of Ara Güler's Istanbul: 40 Years of Photographs, a splendid volume I added to my library only last year.

Always nice to see celebrity portraits. (Ebru Ceylan—yes, of those famous Ceylans; Ebru is Nuri's wife—has a nice recent portrait of the Armenian-Turkish maestro at her website, too—third one down at the link.)

The glittering locales, characteristic Asians, and famous faces notwithstanding, the best shot on Steve's roll might be the very last, taken at a Parsons cemetery when he went there to turn the roll in to Dwayne's. A fitting ending for God and Man's old warhorse, and a picture that, I predict, will remain known in photography's history, down through the years to come.

Mike(Thanks to Luc Novovitch)

ADDENDUM:Oops! Speaking of expiration dates, I think the expiration date on this auction might have just gone past. :-) (Thanks to Oren Grad for this.)

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.